Stories

Browse major news stories and see what officials have said.

Sep 16, 2026

Trump Revokes Obama's Chesapeake Bay Restoration Order and Directs the EPA to Push States to Repeal Stormwater Fees — a Pennsylvania Republican at the Signing Says Families Have Been Billed "for the Rain That Falls on Their Own Roofs and Driveways"

On September 16, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order revoking Executive Order 13508, the 2009 Obama order that created the federal framework for Chesapeake Bay restoration, and directing the EPA to press the six watershed states and the District of Columbia to repeal local stormwater fees — the charges opponents call the "rain tax." The order, titled "Providing Meaningful Water Quality Improvements Through Collaboration and Oversight of Federal Support," reframes Bay cleanup around state collaboration rather than the federal pollution-reduction targets that have structured the effort for seventeen years. Two Pennsylvania Republicans from Luzerne County, where the stormwater fee has been a long-running local grievance, attended or welcomed the signing. As of the day after, no federal official from Maryland or Virginia — the two states most invested in the Bay program — had gone on the record about the order; the sharpest published criticism came from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation rather than an elected official. Stances below are relative to the executive order: "support" backs revoking the 2009 framework and targeting stormwater fees.

“The imposition of the so-called Rain Tax has created considerable controversy and opposition.”
Lisa Baker (R-PA) · Sep 16, 2026

The Endangered Species Act's Definition of "Harm" Dies the Same Day an Internal Memo Narrows the Law to Intentional Killing Only — 21 Attorneys General Sue, With Connecticut's William Tong Saying Trump Is "Sacrificing Entire Species for Short-Term Corporate and Political Gain"

Two things happened to the Endangered Species Act on September 14, 2026. A final rule rescinding the federal government's longstanding regulatory definition of "harm" — the definition that counted habitat destruction as harm to a protected species — took effect. And, according to an internal memo obtained by The New York Times and reported on September 17, Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik signed guidance reinterpreting the 1973 law so that only *intentional* harm to an individual animal or plant violates it. Accidental killings and injuries arising from economic activity would not. Together the two changes strip the Act of the mechanism environmental lawyers have relied on since the Supreme Court upheld the habitat reading in *Babbitt v. Sweet Home* (1995): the ability to treat destroying a species' home as harming the species. Five days before the rule took effect, on September 9, a coalition of 21 state attorneys general — co-led by Massachusetts AG Andrea Campbell and Washington AG Nick Brown — filed two lawsuits in the Northern District of California against the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, seeking to block both the rescission of the "harm" definition and a companion rule stripping automatic protection from newly listed threatened species. Species named in the complaints include the piping plover, the shortnose sturgeon, the leatherback sea turtle and the Southern Resident killer whale, whose population has fallen from 98 whales in 1995 to 74 today. Separately, Sens. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) have introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution that would repeal the rule, though it has no path to the floor before the midterms.

“The Endangered Species Act has been critical in advancing our longstanding commitment to protect threatened species and the habitats they depend on to survive. We must uphold this law, which plays an important role in preserving and protecting the wildlife and natural places that Vermonters cherish and call home.”
Charity Clark (D-VT) · Sep 9, 2026

environment

endangered-species-act

wildlife

5 statements

Aug 18, 2026

The Forest Service Files to Rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule "In Its Entirety," Opening Nearly 45 Million Acres — About a Third of the National Forest System — to Roads and Logging

On August 18, 2026, the U.S. Forest Service filed a proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in its entirety, stripping road-building and timber-harvest prohibitions from roughly 44.7 million acres of national forest — about one-third of the National Forest System. Public comment runs through September 21, 2026. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins framed the repeal as wildfire policy, saying outdated restrictions had kept tens of millions of acres off-limits to treatment and had "tied the hands of local forest managers." Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said more than 40 percent of inventoried roadless areas — primarily in the West — carry high or very high wildfire hazard potential while only 5 percent have received hazardous fuels reduction treatment since 2014. No state is more affected than Alaska, which holds close to a third of the acreage; Colorado and Idaho have their own state-specific roadless rules and would not be covered by the repeal. Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte welcomed the proposal as an end to Washington's "heavy thumb" on nearly 60 percent of Forest Service land in his state. Rep. Jared Huffman, the ranking Democrat on House Natural Resources, called it "reckless" — noting the administration is proposing thousands of miles of new roads in the middle of one of the worst fire seasons on record after firing thousands of Forest Service employees — and said Democrats would fight it in Congress. Wildland fire scientists signed a letter opposing the rescission, and conservation groups have signaled litigation.

“For too long, outdated restrictions have kept tens of millions of forested acres off-limits to the very treatments that improve forest health and reduce wildfire risk to our communities. Today, we filed a proposal to restore authority to local forest managers who know the land best, removing the barriers that have kept them from doing the work the land demands.”
Brooke Rollins (R-TX) · Aug 18, 2026

After Bulldozers Reach Santa Elena Canyon, CBP Halts Border Barrier Construction Inside Big Bend National Park — With a Republican Senator, a Republican Border Sheriff and the Texas Governor All Against the Project

On August 16, 2026, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott announced he was pausing all construction activity for the border barrier inside Big Bend National Park while he traveled to West Texas for what he called a personal, on-the-ground evaluation. Video of crews clearing pristine Chihuahuan Desert wilderness near Santa Elena Canyon had circulated for days, and the project was already facing litigation, including a suit by the Lipan Apache and a petition for a temporary restraining order filed by Texas state Sen. Roland Gutierrez. The opposition was not partisan. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) had written to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on August 7 asking him to halt work until stakeholders were consulted, citing a bipartisan group of Texas border sheriffs, county judges and private landowners, and arguing that Big Bend's 1,000-foot riverbank cliffs and canyon terrain are their own deterrent. Terrell County Sheriff Thaddeus Cleveland, a Republican, said he had been urging Scott to visit for months because the original plan was flawed. Gov. Greg Abbott said Mullin had assured him no barrier of any kind would go up in the park at all, and that drones and fiber optics would secure the area instead. Democrats treated the pause as incomplete and, in Abbott's case, belated. Gutierrez called it a good thing but pressed for a full stop, accusing CBP of having characterized the clearing already done as mere surveying. State Rep. Gina Hinojosa said Abbott had known about the project for months and said nothing while the bulldozers worked.

“Good thing, for sure.”
Roland Gutierrez (D-TX) · Aug 17, 2026